Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 939 (PAT)

Dinesh Kumar v. State of Bihar

2013-08-05

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORDER This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by a practicing lawyer to challenge the result of 27th Bihar Judicial Service Competitive Examination conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission in January 2012 for selection and appointment to the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division) in the State of Bihar. Evidently, the petitioner has failed at that examination. 2. Learned counsel Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh has appeared for the petitioner. He has submitted that the answer-sheets submitted by the petitioner have not been properly evaluated. If the answer-sheets were properly evaluated and appropriate marks were given to the petitioner, he would have passed the examination. Mr. Singh has submitted that this Court in the matter of Khushboo Shrivastava Vs. The Union of India & Ors. [ 2009 (2) BBCJ 320 ] directed re-evaluation of the mark-sheets. Similar relief had been granted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sahiti & Ors. Vs. The Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. [ 2008(8) Supreme 89 ]. He has submitted that similar course be adopted in the present case. 3. True, in both the above referred matters, this Court and the Hon’ble Supreme Court did order re-evaluation of the answer-sheets in respect of the students taking entrance examination for admission to medical course. However, in neither of the aforesaid judgments the Court has settled a universal principle that in all such matters re-evaluation should be permitted. 4. In absence of any specific rule for re-evaluation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission, we do not propose to direct re-evaluation of the mark-sheets, lest a very unhealthy practice will develop for getting the answer papers re-evaluated wherever the students have failed or have received marks less than desired / expected. 5. We may also mention that we have examined copies of the answer papers produced on the record. Prima facie, we do not find the answers submitted by the petitioner under evaluated. 6. For the aforesaid reason, the petition is dismissed in limine.